10-Year Gary McKinnon Case To End This Year 72
judgecorp writes "The ten-year legal quagmire surrounding Gary McKinnon, who hacked into U.S. military and NASA computers in 2001 and 2002, must end this year, a British High Court Judge has ordered. McKinnon has been appealing against extradition to the U.S., and two medical experts must report in 28 days on his mental state, ruling whether he would be a suicide risk if deported. This ruling could short-circuit an extradition appeal hearing in July."
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. Don't feed the trolls.
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
Maximum sentence 70 years, so no, not necessarily.
The UK has a reciprocal agreement with the USA. He could be convicted in the US but then be deported to serve time in a UK prison.
The fact that the NSA, CIA, FBI and DoD had open modems connected to the PSTN doesn't seem to bear any significance in this. Why aren't there some US folks being proscecuted for leaving the door wide open? Why aren't there any courts martial for the DoD folks who didn't stop this security breach?
Some poor kid with a computer and a modem and a random dialer gets the blame for all the ills of this US national security breach is a travesty. That's before we consider the desperately bad unilateral extradition agreement that my lovely Labour Gov't (Bliar and that clown Brown) signed up to (for "anti-terrorist reasons).
Re:Yawn (Score:4, Insightful)
A) Because they didn't "leave the door wide open."
B) You may as well argue that people who don't lock their front door should be charged with a crime because someone steals from them. Because, that is exactly what you are doing.
C) Walking in and taking things is still a CRIME.
D) 35 is not "Some poor kid with a computer and a modem and a random dialer.
Re:Yawn (Score:4, Insightful)
And the door analogy breaks down quite fast, because most doors/locks AFAIK isn't designed to protect against actual burglary - real burglars mostly just smash a window or drill the lock open, or so I've read.
As for what he did, if the guards of a military base suddenly waltzes off for hookers and blow and some random nut looking for UFO's wanders in and peeks about the hangars before getting caught, would this even be an issue? Or would it just be laughed off?
Re: (Score:2)
And the door analogy breaks down quite fast, because most doors/locks AFAIK isn't designed to protect against actual burglary - real burglars mostly just smash a window or drill the lock open, or so I've read.
Not where I live (the UK). Most burglaries are through windows that are left open. Smashing windows and drilling locks tends to make the neighbours suspicious, though obviously it does happen.
You always get a rise in opportunistic burglaries during hot weather here, as people open their windows and forgot to shut/lock them later.
Re: (Score:1)
And the door analogy breaks down quite fast, because most doors/locks AFAIK isn't designed to
The legal aspect is that there was a door and he kicked it down. The crime of 'breaking and entering' can be charged even if there was as much as a cobweb that was broken. Let me rehash my favorite 2 scenarios.
First scenario. A group of disaffected youth break into a business with a crowbar. They steal the cash box and trade the list of credit card reciepts to the local dope dealer for a couple of lids. They trash the inventory and take what they want. The local police later arrest the group trying to fence
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
B) You may as well argue that people who don't lock their front door should be charged with a crime because someone steals from them. Because, that is exactly what you are doing.
No, I wouldn't expect that. What I would expect, however, is that if they are at work and they fail to secure their workstation when they leave their desk, that they are held accountable for any data loss through that connection. The Military isn't a home user, it's a government entity which frequently deals with highly sensitive information (none if which was accessed by McKinnon, BTW). I would expect, nay demand that those responsible for maintaining the security of those systems be investigated for incom
Re:Yawn (Score:4, Insightful)
"A) Because they didn't "leave the door wide open.""
There's no better definition of wide open on the internet than a public facing computer with blank, or no password. If you think this isn't wide open, then please, for the love of god, don't ever get a job in IT, or if you have one, kindly vacate it immediately.
"B) You may as well argue that people who don't lock their front door should be charged with a crime because someone steals from them. Because, that is exactly what you are doing."
No you may as well not, because people who don't lock their front door aren't being paid by the tax payer to look after national security. It's a question of competence, and leaving defence network computers open on the public internet can be firmly filed under gross negligence.
"C) Walking in and taking things is still a CRIME."
Well he didn't take anything - it was all still there when he left, but yes you're right, walking in is still a crime. Not the sort any sane person would expect you to get extradited to a foreign country to serve 70 years in prison over though.
"D) 35 is not "Some poor kid with a computer and a modem and a random dialer."
Yes you're right, but he's not fully mentally healthy like a typical adult either, the truth is thus somewhere in between.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you're right, but he's not fully mentally healthy like a typical adult either, the truth is thus somewhere in between.
He doesn't seem mentally incompetent to me. It might be that he's stress-sensitive and unable to socially interact like a normal person, but Asperger syndrome doesn't affect moral perception as such. IANAL/IANAP, but I don't think this crime is remotely excusable in a legal sense by his condition even if he "lives in his own little world". Removing moral agency from individuals like that willy-nilly, especially for such a fluid and vaugely defined condition, seems inappropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
"It might be that he's stress-sensitive and unable to socially interact like a normal person, "
That is a mental health issue though, and particularly in the likes of the US jail system thousands of miles from home and his family then of course he's a suicide risk at that point - some people kill themselves in jail even when they're otherwise mentally healthy based on that alone, the added trauma of facing that when you're socially inept surrounded by in your face prisoners is bound to make him higher risk t
Re: (Score:2)
nope - Gordon Brown tried to do that deal with the US, he was rebuffed.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/wikileaks_us_no_deal_to_gordon_brown_s_plea_to_keep_scots_hacker_in_uk_1_836400 [scotsman.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's before we consider the desperately bad unilateral extradition agreement that my lovely Labour Gov't (Bliar and that clown Brown) signed up to (for "anti-terrorist reasons).
So why don't Cameron and his lapdog Clegg do something about re-negotiating it then? And do you really think that a Tory leader after 9/11 would have told the US to go fuck themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
Then his mother would have to convert the basement back into a bedroom.
Re:Who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of people 'give a shit', myself included. Go back to Reddit or 4chan with the rest of your kind (trolls)
I give a shit. - J Assange
Re: (Score:2)
But I agree with you outside of that. Don't click the links you're not interested in it's really that simple.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, because we have nothing better to do than prosecute curious kids, this is more of an honor thing for the states. If there was such a thing as justice, you'd be standing trial for your worth to human society (troll), as well as paying the piper yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
He was born in 1966, hardly a kid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon [wikipedia.org]
Gary McKinnon (born 10 February 1966) is a Scottish[1] systems administrator and hacker who has been accused of what one U.S. prosecutor claims is the "biggest military computer hack of all time,"[2] although McKinnon himself states that he was merely looking for evidence of free energy suppression and a cover-up of UFO activity and other technologies potentially useful to the public. After a series of legal proceedings in England, McKinnon is currently fighting extradition to the United States.
Re:Lame Excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
and just what is "justice"?
Can a country like the US even claim the moral high ground on "justice" anymore?
America has over the past 10+ years detailed persons without trials, executed it's citizens, subjected it's population to invasive searches, and worked to curtail free speech, free expression, and peaceful lawful assembly.
No sir, I submit to you that this man cannot get "justice" in America, and I think it would be better if more counties stood up to the United States and blocked extraditions. As a mater of principle, countries should not seek to enforce their laws on persons who are not their citizens or in their physical territory.
Re:Lame Excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly right sir, the arrogance of the US is incredible. He should not be extradited to a country with such an applaing prison system and downright uncicivilsed legal system that has the death penalty, and has repeatedly been found to have executed innocent people.
Re:Lame Excuse (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully the EU will ban all extraditions to the US where there is a chance that the accused may be killed or imprisoned inhumanely (Guantanimo, lack of medical treatment, average US jail etc.)
Sending someone somewhere you know they will be mistreated is as bad as doing it yourself.
Assange's noew talkshow (Score:1)
If Gary McKinnon can drag it out for ten years, I can see why Jullian Assange is willing to start new projects.
Can you image that? (Score:1)
Essentially, 10 years in fear. Granted guy was a wee bit paranoid and nutty before, not holding that against him here, but 10 freaking years!
How does one live with such a thing looming over them for that long? Not knowing if your country can see reason with regard to your case.
I have some sympathy for him, due to the fact that justice would be usurped if the Brits actually extradited him, but how can any Brit. look at their justice system after this and think it isn't one, big, sad joke.
Re:Can you image that? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not just the justice system that's deeply flawed if he is extradited, it's the whole political system. In the run up to the last election, all three leaders of the big parties said they would resolve this, and none of them have lifted a finger when in power (Labour were in power for most of the last 10 years, now the other two, Liberal and Conservative, govern in coalition).
In our whole political system, I've yet to hear one single person who says that Gary should be extradited. They all, without exception as far as I know, back his right to a UK trial... and I've yet to hear one single person lift a finger to make it happen.
Re:Can you image that? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he allegedly hacked into unsecured military systems, using default passwords. He didn't tamper with secure files, he allegedly tampered with unsecured files.
Nobody is saying he doesn't need to face justice, but when the knee jerk reaction of Americans is exactly what you posted, then it's unlikely he would actually get a fair trial on your side of the Atlantic.
He's a UK citizen, accused of misusing a computer in the UK. There is no justification for not allowing him a UK trial, and no justification for leaving this hanging over him (and his family) for a whole decade.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually.. because of the joys of the internet, your boy potentially committed a crime in the UK ... AND committed a crime in the US. At the same time, in the same act.
So.. if there is "no justification for not allowing him a UK trial" there is also no justification in not allowing the US to prosecute him as well. Lots of rationalization, perhaps. Justification, not nearly as much.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Correction.
He 'logged in' to unsecured military systems which were deemed to be secured. Yes, he did knowingly access systems which he was not allowed to, however the 'hacking' that took place was merely the use of default common credentials usernames and passwords.
Overblown on his technical ability front? Absolutely! We still have yet to hear what happened to the 'system administrators', or contractors, tasked with managing those machines. Other than the Million dollar price tag they supposedly shelled out
Re: (Score:2)
BZZT. Wrong. If the situation was reversed, the US would show the UK the finger and refuse to extradite one of its citizens. And there wouldn't be regular slashdot articles on it.
Re: (Score:2)
The US does not refuse to extradite its citizens who commit crimes over seas.
List of countries with which US has bi-directional extradition treaties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties [wikipedia.org]
Even where there is no such treaty:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_18_00003196----000-.html [cornell.edu]
It Happens a lot more than you think:
http://www.peruviantimes.com/17/american-citizen-to-be-extradited-to-peru-for-killing-wife-and-dumping-body-at-sea/3491/ [peruviantimes.com]
http://www.modernghana.com/news/70 [modernghana.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It's not clear though that McKinnon committed a crime in the US rather than committed a crime in the UK, (which is the point that I find concerning, particularly).
Re: (Score:2)
If he did as he admitted to doing, he did commit a crime in the US. It doesn't matter where you were sitting when you did it.
It may or may not be a crime in the UK to hack a computer outside the UK.
I'm not sure any US law makes it a crime to hack a computer in the UK either.
Re:Can you image that? (Score:5, Insightful)
It very much does. The fact that the US considers the *consequences* of his UK computations a crime on US soil is not relevant, as he was under UK jurisdiction during the entire period when it occurred.
I don't believe that it is a good idea to think along the lines you suggest. It means plain and simply that a person sitting in one country becomes subject to the laws of all countries.
For example, the US has a fairly strong tradition of free speech laws, but Iran doesn't. If a person in Ohio posts some negative comments about the prophet Mohammed, this person is (by your reasoning) committing a crime in Iran as soon as the comment passes through one of their local servers. So according to this reasoning, he/she should be handed over to be tried there on suspicion, forthwith.
There is a correct way out, and it involves trial in the UK. The US prosecutor should simply travel to the UK, and drag McKinnon through the British court system. If there is any relevant evidence, it should be brought along, and handed over as evidence to the Crown. If McKinnon is found guilty, he can be sentenced in the UK under UK law, and serve his time.
That is the only way to prevent the pathological (and in fact, highly contradictory) situation where an internet user is subject to the laws of every single country in the world simultaneously.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly do.
Re: (Score:2)
The relevant law is The Computer Misuse Act 1990 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/contents [legislation.gov.uk]
5 Significant links with domestic jurisdiction.
(1)The following provisions of this section apply for the interpretation of section 4 above.
(2)In relation to an offence under section 1, either of the following is a significant link with domestic jurisdiction—
(a)that the accused was in the home country concerned at the time when he did the act which caused the computer to perform the function; or
[F1(b)
Re: (Score:2)
So as far as the UK is concerned its perfectly legal to hack a foreign computer.
Just don't hack one of theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
No. It is illegal to:
o be in the uk while hacking a computer
o hack a computer in the uk
Re: (Score:2)
From your linked article:
The Home Office's massive review of extradition says that the US has not refused any extradition requests since the treaty came into force.
So I take it that is a full retraction of your BZZT Wrong post?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't the end.
It isn't even the beginning of the end.
But it is near the end of the beginning.
Apologies to Sir Winston.
Aside from this (Score:1)
Escape clause: Pretend you'll kill yourself (Score:2)
Wow, this new escape clause should be even easier to wield than "temporary insanity." All you have to do is convince a couple doctors you MIGHT get suicidal if deported, and you get off scott free.
Clue in: If you violate a foreign nation's laws and your home country has an extradition treaty with them, you're HOOPED.
Re:Escape clause: Pretend you'll kill yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
Not at all, if he isn't extradited he'll face trial in the UK.
The only caveat however is that this has been dragging on so long that I suspect even if found guilty in the UK now any judge will say he has suffered punishment enough and probably not make him spend even a minute in jail. If they do I think that's a pretty fair assessment - the mental anguish something like this must cause being dragged out over 10 years is pretty awful.
Relax... (Score:4, Funny)